Marriage vs. civil unions

While reading some letters at Tomato Nation on the subject of gay marriage vs. civil unions, I came across this letter that quotes the Mass. decision that made it clear that "separate but equal" didn't work before and won't work now.

"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal. . . . . The dissimilitude between the terms "civil marriage" and "civil union" is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status. . . . [N]o amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain." --- Mass. SJC-09163 (2004)

I have to admit, I found this bit of legalese moving, which is surely a sign of profound nerdiness. Anyway, it got me to thinking about those who try to hide their homophobia by saying that they are fine with civil unions, but just don't like gays intruding on marriage. There isn't really a way to justify that--just as in the "separate but equal" days before Brown v. Board of Education, there is no way to say that you're allowing someone equality as long as they don't stray into areas marked off for you and you alone.

One of the more stubborn bigots at Alas, a Blog, continues to venture forth the argument that hetereosexuals have somehow earned the right to marry that gays haven't by virtue of the fact that we have vaginal intercourse. (I cannot believe I had to type that.) That is officially the first and last time that anyone has ever suggested that I am special for that particular trick. Well, anyone that doesn't have firsthand knowledge, at least.

Nonetheless, it shows that bigots don't necessarily hate their targets. Often, they just want the comfort of feeling superior to someone else, and the target is handy. They want to have that warm, fuzzy feeling of superiority without having to work for it.

On top of it, one of the major reasons that people get married is to feel special. It's ugly, but it's true. Not only is there the obnoxious side of weddings where the community comes together and flatters and fawns over the couple for doing what 90% of the population does at some point in their lives, but there is a percentage of married people that carry that with them wherever they go, the belief that their status makes them superior to those who don't have it.

And that's who sees gay marriage as a threat to the sanctity of marriage. If more people can have a piece of the pie, it does make it less special, as far as they are concerned. Same sex marriage exposes the lie at the heart of our marriage-centered culture--that straight marriage is sacrosanct, difficult to achieve and only for those who adhere most closely to social standards--white, straight, rich, straight-laced, etc. It takes away what is to many people the only real reward for marriage, which is the right to look down your nose at others.

Of course, that's not most people. I'd say it's only 25% of the population. But that's a big enough percentage to keep the idiotic idea that gay marriage "threatens" straight marriage alive and kicking.